Continuing Legal Education

Seminars and conferences, which are what section 7(1)(ib) names.

Workshops on skill, which are the ones that resemble the clinical methods of chapter 280 and are the rarest.

Publications and journals, chapter 935, which are continuing education in the ordinary sense even where nobody calls them that.

Induction training for new entrants, which is where the pre-enrolment training question of chapter 420 sits.

And self-directed reading, which is what most practitioners actually do and which chapter 320's research skill makes possible.

Voluntary or compulsory

The question every system faces, and a candidate should be able to argue both sides.

For compulsion. A voluntary system reaches the lawyers who least need it, since those who attend are those already interested. Compulsion reaches the rest. Several jurisdictions require a stated number of hours a year as a condition of continued practice.

Against compulsion. Hours attended are not learning, and a requirement measured in hours produces attendance rather than education. It costs practitioners time and money, which falls hardest on the sole practitioner in a district. And it requires machinery to accredit providers and record attendance, which is expensive.

The Indian position. There is no general statutory requirement of continuing legal education as a condition of continued practice under the Advocates Act, and the provision that exists is enabling rather than obligatory. A candidate should state that rather than describing another country's scheme as though it applied here.

And the reform argument. If the case for the All India Bar Examination is that entry standards should be externally tested, chapter 420, the same reasoning applies with more force to a person twenty years into practice, and that is the strongest available argument for a compulsory scheme.

Its relation to the rest of Module I

To the objectives, chapter 20: if legal education exists to produce competent practitioners, competence at entry is not the whole objective.

To the methods, chapter 330: adult professionals learn differently from students, and a lecture to a hall of practitioners is the least effective form available, which is why the workshop is the right method and the rarest.

To examination reform, chapter 450: an education with no assessment attached is not taken seriously, and continuing legal education generally has none, which is the honest explanation of its patchy attendance.

And to the divided regulation, chapter 110: continuing legal education for practitioners belongs to the Bar Council, for judicial officers to the academies, and for teachers to the University Grants Commission's own schemes, so three bodies do parts of it and none does the whole.

A worked example

A lawyer enrolled fifteen years ago, practising in a district court.

What has changed under her. The criminal procedure law she learned has been replaced; the evidence law has been replaced; the company law was recast; a data protection statute now exists that did not; and the legal aid regulations of 2010 and 2011 were made after she qualified, chapters 590 and 600.

What she has done about it. Read the amending Acts as they affected her cases; attended two Bar association lectures; and learned the rest from opponents and from judges correcting her.

What continuing legal education would add. A refresher course on the new codes; a workshop on a skill she uses rarely, such as drafting a writ petition; and a journal subscription.

What stands in the way. Time she is not paid for; cost; distance from wherever the course is held; and the absence of any requirement or incentive.

And what would change it. Not exhortation. Either a requirement tied to continued practice, or courses that are free, local and short, or an assessment that matters. That is chapter 450's four conditions applied to a different population, and stating it that way is what turns a description of continuing legal education into an argument about it.

Quick revision

Continuing legal education is the systematic further education of lawyers, judges and teachers after qualification, by refresher courses, seminars, workshops, publications and training.

Why: the law changes and the degree does not; a degree cannot cover the field a practitioner will meet; skill decays; entry standards are a floor tested once; and the client cannot judge currency.

Where it sits: section 7(1)(ib) of the Advocates Act, seminars, talks by eminent jurists and publication, which is its statutory home; rule 34, the Directorate of Legal Education; judicial academies for the Bench; and Bar bodies and institutions.

Voluntary or compulsory: compulsion reaches those who most need it; but hours are not learning, it costs the sole practitioner most, and it needs accreditation machinery. India has no general statutory requirement, and the provision is enabling.

The strongest reform argument: if entry deserves an external test, so does a practitioner twenty years in.

Test yourself

1. Define continuing legal education and give three reasons it is necessary. The systematic further education of practising lawyers, judges and law teachers after their formal qualification, through refresher courses, seminars, workshops, publications and training. It is necessary because substantive law changes constantly while the degree does not; because a degree cannot cover the field a practitioner will actually meet; and because skill decays and is not maintained by practice alone in areas the lawyer uses rarely.

2. Which provision of the Advocates Act is its statutory home, and what does it say? Section 7(1)(ib), which makes it a function of the Bar Council of India to conduct seminars and organise talks on legal topics by eminent jurists and to publish journals and papers of legal interest.

3. State the case for and against making it compulsory, and the Indian position. For: a voluntary system reaches those already interested and misses those who most need it, so compulsion is the only way to reach the rest. Against: hours attended are not learning, the cost in time and money falls hardest on the sole practitioner, and accreditation and record keeping require expensive machinery. In India there is no general statutory requirement as a condition of continued practice; the provision that exists is enabling.

4. What would actually improve attendance, and why is exhortation not enough? Either a requirement tied to continued practice, or courses that are free, local and short, or an assessment that matters. Exhortation fails for the same reason it fails with students: an education with no assessment or consequence attached is not prepared for, which is the argument of chapter 450 applied to practitioners.